People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics

https://digest.bps.org.uk/2018/11/13/people-are-consistently-inconsistent-in-how-they-reason-about-controversial-scientific-topics/

by sohkamyung • 8 years ago

123 178 8 years ago

digest.bps.org.uk

untog• 8 years ago

Resist the urge to comment here with stories of the time everyone around you was illogical and inconsistent, and you were the sole voice of reason (or so you think). Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.

matwood3• 8 years ago

Much more interesting to think of the times when you were illogical and inconsistent, because it's a lot harder to spot in yourself.

Agreed. This is something I think about a lot. I like consistency and am always trying to reconcile my personal beliefs with each other. It can be quite hard because it leads to questioning other beliefs that may be deeply held. The classic example is logic/reasoning and religion.

A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.

richk449• 8 years ago

A simpler example that I recently went through was that I stopped drinking alcohol. I never had a problem with alcohol and would have beer or wine here and there. But, the evidence keeps mounting that it's literally just putting poison in your body with little benefits. I felt it was inconsistent for me to workout everyday, eat healthy, and then drink alcohol. So I stopped rationalizing and quit.

Isn't this an example of you being the sole reasonable one? Exactly the thing the parent post was suggesting we avoid writing about?

beat13• 8 years ago

Something I say a lot, especially at work, is "I could be wrong. I'm often wrong." I think it's very, very important to constantly remind yourself that you're not always right, and you're (hopefully) not the smartest person in the room. (Another rule of thumb - if you're the smartest person in the room, you need to find a better room!)

This also makes me think of the book Factfulness, by Hans Rosling. Best book I've read in years. In it, he details thought patterns common to all of us that mislead us and cause us to misunderstand or ignore even basic facts. He's not talking about "dumb people". He's talking about smart people, and how utterly wrong they are most of the time. It'll fundamentally change how you look at your own way of thinking.

tialaramex2• 8 years ago

I've always felt that ability to accept that I'm wrong was essential to being any good at what I do ("write software") because of course the machine is (almost without exception) right and so almost always when I do something and it doesn't work that's because I got something wrong. I thought the variable was named something else, I thought the content type defaults to XML, I thought the input value is never zero, I thought that tiny change didn't need me to re-run the unit tests...

I find that being constantly confronted by the fact that I'm wrong in what I do for a living (and a hobby) sets me up to handle the same elsewhere in a more healthy way.

Example: I really like the intuitive explanation of what's actually going on with digital audio in Xiph's "Digital Show and Tell" and I often cite that when other people don't seem to understand - but this isn't because it was always obvious to me that's how it works. On the contrary, I find their explanation compelling because it directly confronts a common misunderstanding I had when I was younger. This misunderstanding was resolved by a friend & ex-colleague showing me more or less what Monty shows in the video (but with whatever gear he happened to have in his flat). Just like the video, he showed me that what I had believed was defied by the observable facts, and voilà my eyes were opened.

wool_gather4• 8 years ago

At some level, "smart" people may even have an easier time being wrong: one important facet is creativity. In other words, coming up with convincing justifications for one's incorrect stance, and digging in.

alexandercrohde2• 8 years ago

I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"

This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions. By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it (e.g. I've never seen Africa with my own eyes), and most of what we believe isn't scientifically meaningful (i.e. justice/goodness being social constructs).

glitcher• 8 years ago

For the purposes of attempting to understand why people continue to believe in things when there is much scientific evidence to the contrary, I felt the list they chose was very representative of relevant topics that fit this criteria. If you were to attempt to balance what you see as bias in this study, what are some specific examples that you feel would improve it?

aidenn02• 8 years ago

Many I know on the left would deny any evidence of intrinsic psychological differences between the sexes. GMO safety is probably another one, but one example they gave of fallacious reasoning, while logically fallacious, is also well lined up with reality.

dsfyu404ed2• 8 years ago

what are some specific examples that you feel would improve it?

The positive correlation between readily available long guns (i.e. non handguns) and violent crime (protip: the official stats tell the opposite story) is the equivalent to climate change denial (i.e. directly contradicted by pretty much all available evidence and pretty much everyone who is an expert in the subject) for the other end of the political spectrum. If you're looking for examples of illogical opinions this one is as good as any.

alexandercrohde2• 8 years ago

why people continue to believe in things when there is much scientific evidence to the contrary

No, it's not though. It's cherry-picked political. Most instances of believing this contrary to evidence aren't just political.

They are individual (e.g. thinking one is smarter than they are), religious, social (glorifying founding fathers), or even ethical

Buldak3• 8 years ago

What is a controversial scientific view that you wouldn't characterize as "conservative"? The article mentions aversion to GMO, does that count?

dsfyu404ed2• 8 years ago

Aversion to GMO is a sort of aversion to the unknown.

Something like "regulation of long guns (shotguns, rifles, other things that aren't handguns) in various states in the US has had a non-negligible impact on crime in those states" would be more on par with climate change denial because in both cases you really have to pick a lot of cherries to back up the claim.

malmsteen2• 8 years ago

"nuclear power is the safest on earth"

(cf forbes article which show death/kwh is even lower than wind / water energy)

moate2• 8 years ago

Anti-vaxxers tend to be described as middle/upper-class liberals. GMO/Organic trends do also tend to be similar groups

randyrand• 8 years ago

- men and women being physiological equivalent.

- women having equal innate interest in Stem

- no mental differences between races

- gay,bi,trans being entirely genetic

just off the top of my head. scratches the surface.

The last is particularly interesting because its the opposite viewpoint with regards to protected classes of people and genetic psychology.

PurpleBoxDragon2• 8 years ago

Anything along the line of Rind et al. Not that paper in particular, but anything that is even remotely in the same region.

KirinDave3• 8 years ago

I dislike this study. It naively picks out a few conservative views to lampoon as examples of irrationality (I say this as a liberal), and then hopes to generalize this as "controversial topics"

I strong object to this. Having been deeply involved both with this topic, skeptical advocacy, and having been raised deeply conservative: "GMO foods" is not a conservative anti-science issue. It's deeply "liberal", and generally stems from an inability to separate unethical corporate work and interests with the outcomes of technology. Similarly, many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left" in American popular culture.

This is too narrow. We shouldn't pretend that human beliefs are predominantly logical with a few strange exceptions.

Again, I think you're reading into both the study and the article. This is more a study of how people rationalize their beliefs and in some cases, political affiliations inform that. It's an important topic.

By and large we know incredibly little, most of what we "know" is because authorities have told us about it

Science, of course, neither creates reality nor truly measures it. It can only measure our observations, and we can seek to make our observations ever more reflective of reality. The entire point of that process is for us to convince one another and survive each other's reasonable objections.

Understanding how people work themselves up to reject such a consensus-driven process, and how the mental techniques they use may be addressed. The stakes are quite high.

jacobolus2• 8 years ago

many anti-vaccination misinformation peddlers are squarely aligned with what constitutes the "left"

“Squarely aligned”? Nope, anti-vaxxers are not “squarely aligned” with any broad political movement.

Responsible politicians, party officials, pundits, etc. of all parties and ideologies are pro-vaccination.

But e.g. the Governor-Elect of Oklahoma is a GOP anti-vaxxer. It is incredibly dangerous when these views start to get legitimized: children will die.

james_s_tayler• 8 years ago

I don't think they are saying that we are predominantly logical with a few exceptions around controversial topics...

I think they are saying something much, much deeper and maybe this is just my confirmation bias kicking in here but it really supports my observations on a position I've held for a couple of years now.

I think what they are alluding to is that we are not logical and not rational in how we choose all of our beliefs as we do not try to seek out what is true (except for one edge case), instead we try to seek consensus within some political sphere (a group of any kind).

The so called controversial topics are where it's easiest to spot and easiest to study. But there is a stunningly deep implication that just because there is an uncontroversial consensus around something it doesn't mean the conclusion was arrived at by a sound process. So you actually really have to question everything.

For a while now I've been saying people don't argue for what is true, they argue for political affiliation.

It's close to impossible for humans to tell what's true. Often it would take trillions of dollars, millions of people or thousands of years to actually verify something as being the case. We take 99.99% of our existence on faith because it's simply not possible for us to fact check it. And if it's not possible for us to fact check what is true except for in the most basic of cases why would it ever be important to us as a social behavior? So that's why we see what this article points out. At least in my view.

We do do some degree of fact checking but it's usually the minimum viable fact checking to coordinate with our peers.

The interesting edge case they point out where some people do reason consistently is also signaling political affiliation. They are attempting to signal "I'm on team evidence-based". But the interesting thing about team "evidence-based" is they tend not to question or be skeptical so much of the fraud and other social phenomenon (replication crisis etc) present in science. They take it on faith that "this is the best answer I have whether it is true or not, but it's most likely true therefore it's true". Even team evidence-based isn't purely rational. And for good reason. They can't be. It's simply not viable to personally try to reproduce every study you read.

We are political animals that care about our survival and forming consensus. Not truth.

cryoshon• 8 years ago

interesting article with a lot of good tidbits. i found it particularly interesting that the authors mention how a substantial subset of people merely reiterate their position when prompted to explain their rationale for certain beliefs.

the details regarding how for many people "reasoning" is about referencing the person's perception of their own identity is also very valuable. i wouldn't call this reasoning whatsoever, however. it's tribalism -- the opposite of reasoning. this suggests that many people simply don't think about controversial issues, and instead take cues from authorities of their identity subtype. i assume there is literature which supports this idea.

there was one thing which i took issue with, however.

sceptical attitudes toward the scientific consensus on genetically modified foods (as safe) tended to involve fallacious reasoning of a conspiratorial bent (such as “I am hesitant to believe there are NO concerns because the multinational agricultural corporations such as Monsanto have profits as the basis of their existence so any information they put out is suspect”)

this is a poor example given the recent debunking of monsanto's "glyphosate is safe" fabrications. it isn't conspiratorial to suggest that X may not be Y because the proponent of X benefits from and encourages people thinking Y. that's basic critical thinking which recognizes that scientific results can be skewed or falsified to support a narrative.

given the rest of the article, i'm confident that the author's use of this example wasn't malicious... but there are many better examples.

TheOtherHobbes• 8 years ago

The article implies a scientific fallacy, which is that scientific knowledge is binary - i.e. either science can say with certainty that something is true, or it can say with equal certainty that something is false.

This is not how science works. There are decreasing circles of confidence out from the relative certainty of a core curriculum - approximately an undergrad degree in a hard science - to various research topics. At the edges are pure research which is really just educated guessing. Far from being an invincible march towards knowledge, science actually progresses by throwing grad students at problems more or less at random. Some of them get lucky and find some key insights that match reality.

Most don't.

Unfortunately there's plenty of evidence from history of scientific reassurances being presented as certainties which were subsequently shown to be wrong - sometimes dangerously so.

Add the toxic influence of corporate interest and the unarguable reality that fact that some "evidence" is bought and paid for, and it becomes very hard to accept research as the proof science would like it to be.

So it's actually rational to be skeptical of extraordinary claims.

E.g. GMOs. The extraordinary claim is that GMOs will end hunger. Obviously only a total monster would oppose that.

In reality research into other farming techniques also increases yields, and in any case hunger is actually caused by bad politics, not lack of faith in science.

Articles like these conflate the difference between science-as-pure-research for the sake of knowledge, and science-as-policy-justification.

The standards for science-as-policy should be much higher than science-as-research, because the consequences of warping truth for profit or power can be so much more damaging.

coldtea• 8 years ago

However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience or fallacious reasoning.

Well, another reading of this is that "objective criteria" aren't everything.

Even if it's "scientifically objectively" better to do X, it doesn't mean it's what a person wants to do (or should do).

There's better as in "more efficient" (which is measurable and objective) and better as a value judgement.

"This fits better with my moral code, culture, food taste, preferences, etc." is a perfectly valid justification.

Wehrdo2• 8 years ago

45 per cent of participants explicitly denied, at least once, that anything could change their mind on a particular topic

This is the most troubling data from the study for me. It's natural that people will hold opinions for which they don't have evidence, since we can't be experts on everything (e.g. "I trust my friend, who thinks that"), but the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying.

matwood3• 8 years ago

It's an ego thing. Being wrong is hard. I have found it can be even harder for 'smart' people to be wrong because so much of their self worth is built around being smart and thus right much of the time.

tom_• 8 years ago

the fact that half the population hold opinions that they would not change, given any amount of evidence, is actually somewhat terrifying

What would change your mind on this?

lostcolony2• 8 years ago

New data suggesting that a larger percentage would be willing to change their mind given reasonable evidence?

I know you're trying to be snarky, but come on.

Wehrdo2• 8 years ago

If you want a serious answer to "What would it take to not be terrified of this fact?", I suppose it would be: Evidence indicating that populations are better served by ignoring reasoning and obtaining their beliefs through some other means, be it faith or authority.

In fairness, that opinion is not unprecedented in history.

commandlinefan2• 8 years ago

I can't find the exact quote, but something Scott Adams (the creator of Dilbert) wrote once always stuck with me: "I've never seen anybody change their behavior due to a well-reasoned argument. I have seen people change their behavior to avoid ridicule."

hodgesrm3• 8 years ago

It's perhaps useful to look at the positions of scientists themselves. First, there's not a clear boundary between scientific and non-scientific inquiry. Isaac Newton spent a considerable amount of time investigating alchemy among other subjects. He also held views well outside the mainstream on religion. [0]

Second, scientists can be just as obstinate as anyone. There is abundant evidence of scientists failing to modify their views in response to new ideas and data. Plate tectonics comes lightly to mind--many of those who opposed it never changed their minds. It prevailed in part because the opposition retired or died. [1]

If scientists themselves can be so resistant to rational inquiry, why do we uphold this as an ideal for ordinary citizens?

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isaac_Newton

[1] https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/when-continent...

YorkshireSeason• 8 years ago

In what sense is alchemy (in the way Newton understood it) not science?

It was a reasonable hypothesis at the time that you can make gold from other material. Indeed with particle accelerators you can do this [1, 2, 3]. Newton's methods were not powerful enough to achieve this, but this research hypothesis got refined, leading to chemistry as we know it today.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synthesis_of_precious_metals

[2] https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/fact-or-fiction-l...

[3] https://glintpay.com/gold/modern-day-alchemy-making-gold-ato...

turc1656• 8 years ago

I think that what the people who indicate this really mean is that they refuse to change their minds as long as a decent portion of the population also refuses to change their viewpoint as well. Because then it is still validated to a certain degree. Scott Adams, the creator of Dilbert, had a great blog post about this topic. His post was on the issue of global warming and he said basically that his position on global warming is that since he doesn't know enough about the science to say with any level of certainty himself whether the claims of global warming are true and there is a social/political cost in terms of credibility/image for saying you don't believe it, then he will always say he is a believer and agrees with the mainstream opinion, regardless of what he actually thinks or if he simply doesn't know where he stands. If 99% of the world came to agree on the topic of global warming, I doubt most of these people who claim they will never change their mind would still hold the same belief. For example, are there still flat-Earthers? Yes, but they are a rounding error to 0 at this point.

BeetleB2• 8 years ago

At a very young age (I think teenage years), I learned to ask this question whenever I'm in an endless argument:

What information will make you change your mind?

In reality, you'll either get something ridiculously hard to show, or you'll get "Nothing!" I used to think it was a good way to realize you're wasting your time in the argument.

Over the years, my view has become nuanced. Those people who say "Nothing" or something outrageous are merely saying it because they themselves don't know in the moment what it will take. In practice, people do change their minds. So I wouldn't read too much into that 45% figure - it's more of a sign they didn't have an answer when they were asked.

Now in reality, social influences usually trigger a change much more than factual reasoning. If someone is adamant about a position and won't listen to you, but then he finds that a close friend he views as having similar values shares your perspective, he is much more likely to start looking at the facts. He is also much more likely to listen to that person than you.

I strongly recommend the books Influence by Cialdini as well as various negotiation books. The first gives the science. The latter puts them into practice.

The biggest mistake pro-science people make is in declaring others' opinions as wrong, and then follow it up with all the objective evidence they have to support their position that it is wrong. In the other person, this triggers a deep human sentiment "This other person does not care about my opinion". You get much further by listening and understanding the other person's perspective, and then signalling that you understand. Once there, present your facts, but not forcefully. End it with "Based on this data, my opinion is ..." Focus on why you believe what you do without explicitly invalidating the other person's perspective (no matter how insane).

wjnc• 8 years ago

I lolled at the qualification of the conspiratorial bent arguments as fallacious. They clearly are not. Conspiracies happen and can take a long time to unwind. They should not make up the bulk of your argument and should not fuel a position without doubt, but they are not fallacious. Scientist make mistakes, take unwarranted positions and take bribes all the time. (I mean this across all fields not as any kind of direct accusation.) Some scepsis with any consensus is just smart logic.

nabla92• 8 years ago

Conspiratorial arguments have little no relation to actual real world conspiracies.

williamdclt• 8 years ago

I don't think we can make a generalization here, there's all kinds of conspiration theories and all kinds of conspiratorial arguments

Dylan168072• 8 years ago

Sure. The argument being debunked as "conspiratorial" isn't even really a conspiracy. Companies that pay for safety studies cause them to be biased. That objectively happens.

commandlinefan2• 8 years ago

Well, remember, if the mainstream media isn't reporting on a particular conspiracy theory, that's evidence that it IS happening. Otherwise why would they be afraid to report it?

hodgesrm3• 8 years ago

Sometimes there are conspiracies. But they are rare compared to simple incompetence. My objection to most conspiracy theories is that they skip over the null hypothesis, namely that one or more fallible humans screwed up.

schuyler2d• 8 years ago

I agree, and more so, it's something that most people feel more confident in assessing.

Put yourself in the position of someone that genuinely doesn't trust themselves to assess scientific evidence. One scientist article says one thing one week another the next, and they all feel vaguely related and unrelated.

If you can't trust yourself to weigh and understand the evidence yourself you instead look to the institutional pressures you think you understand.

In all the topics there is a well-constructed 'Them' * GMOs: the FDA is largely controlled by the agriculture industry themselves, across parties and administrations. It's not irrational to fear that the FDA is not adequately regulating food. * Vaccines: similar fears about the pharmaceutical industry are valid.

Both those industries have paid scientists, government regulators, and news organizations to spin data for their benefit and to avoid justice of different kinds.

*Global warming: the same people that seem to be overly concerned about cute owls and monkeys are "the liberals" which control the universities/research. Sure smog is bad, but (as one Denver taxi driver said to me once) "it smells like money." Sure they mean well, but they are likely to blow the issues out of proportion.

That's a system someone thinks they understand while who knows what an ice core really means.

TFA indicated that avoiding indicating identity/allegiance might help, but I'd like to see that study actually done.

atq2119• 8 years ago

Not to mention that for two of the topics mentioned (vaccines and GMO foods), and notably the topic for which a quote of so-called "conspiratorial argument" was provided in the article, there's not just the issue of the scientific consensus but also of how the corresponding technology is applied in the real world.

The highlighted argument about profit-seeking by companies is clearly a valid concern when it comes to how technologies are actually applied. It's why we have regulation and independent oversight bodies. (It's also unfair and misleading to call it a conspiratorial argument in the first place -- it's simply pointing out that an actor has financial interests and may therefore be biased, there's no conspiracy involved.)

Maybe you'd want survey respondents to perfectly separate the concerns of applications vs. scientific consensus, but to be honest I think that's an unfair expectation.

repsilat• 8 years ago

Right. The article calls these things "fallacies", but that only strictly means that they're not slam-dunk arguments. Logical fallacies aren't necessarily bad heuristics, they just don't necessarily assure strict logical implication.

(Often they are actually decent Bayesian "evidence", though I don't want to make that argument for the cases in TFA.)

GauntletWizard• 8 years ago

The Roman Trivium was Logic, Rhetoric, and grammar. Most of these arguments are logical fallacies - X does not guarantee Y - but are valid Rhetorical devices. Slippery slope is easiest to explain. If A, 90% chance of B, if B, 90% chance of C, if C, 90% chance of D. Therefore, if A, 73% of D - A implies D, if not perfectly. This is completely valid in Rhetoric, where you can't perfectly model anything, just approximate, but not logic, where truth or falsehood is digitized and binary. Most arguments that humans get into are rhetorical, but our focus on logic has left us vulnerable to misunderstanding. We are ignoring clear correlations because there's not a logical certainty.

hamilyon2• 8 years ago

People are not stupid and issues in question are hard. Pretending you are an expert and know actual justification, evidence and logic behind all the geology, genetics, thermodynamics and so and so to have informed opinion about all of these topics is wrong.

People are right about their own beliefs. Their beliefs are not based on evidence, but cultural.

They could research one topic and report knowing it because of evidence (they researched it)

irq-1• 8 years ago

How do people trust experts? That's a fundamental problem.

Additionally, there are non-scientific issues confused with "belief" in science. Does agreeing with the scientific consensus on GMOs entail a belief that corporations can be trusted to implement the science? That scientists, politicians and regulators haven't been bribed or coerced? That scientific and political systems in other countries can be judged by the scientific experts? Trusting in a practical use of GMOs is not the same as believing in the scientific consensus.

Another example:

The Justice Department and FBI have formally acknowledged that nearly every examiner in an elite FBI forensic unit gave flawed testimony in almost all trials in which they offered evidence against criminal defendants over more than a two-decade period before 2000.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/fbi-overstated-fo...

waqf• 8 years ago

How do people trust experts? That's a fundamental problem.

Yes, this! I've often thought that a lot of hereditary socioeconomic underperformance may be in some sense attributable to a self-reinforcing information deficit where people don't figure out which experts to trust, which life advice to take, which friends to make and keep. If your parents don't start you right it must be a helluva job to figure it out later.

WhompingWindows• 8 years ago

This is intuitive. People aren't consistent, why should we expect their reasoning to be? Especially when the main determinant for most peoples' views on controversial topics, in the USA at least, is their political party affiliation. Why is it that having a D or R in front of a politician's name can correctly predict around 80-90% of their viewpoints? It's a clustering effect, people select D or R, and then cobble together reasoning as best they can to defend their felt views.

Perfectly evidenced by the use of science, for instance. You have something like a pro-life movement, which co-opts scientific "facts" to support their view of fetuses being humans. But then these same GOP voters ignore scientific "facts" when it comes to climate change. This is due to the Republican politicians, who cluster all of their supporter's views to match their own. It's the same on the Democratic side - look at anti-GMO protesters who are ignorant of the scientifically proven benefits of GMO's, yet who point to 98% of scientists reaching consensus on climate change.

Political party is stronger than reasoning or consistency.

cdoxsey• 8 years ago

Because political questions don't have scientific solutions.

Pro-life supporters aren't co-opting science when they claim a fetus is a human being, they are undermining a possible objection: obviously everyone recognizes that killing a 1 year old is not ok, regardless how the mother feels about it, so why is it ok to kill a fetus? What's the relevant distinction between the two cases?

In a former time people didn't have a good understanding of human development, so you might claim the fetus wasn't really human until it was born. Scientifically that doesn't hold up.

But you might still be ok with abortion on other grounds. Perhaps a rationale based on capabilities or intelligence, etc.

You can levy science to support a premise in an argument, but science can't decide the policy. That comes down to values, trade-offs, philosophy and ideology.

Climate change is a great example. What everyone talks about is a belief in a one sentence description of an idea. But the actual detailed contours of that belief, and the scientific arguments that led to its conclusion... who has those?

Climate isn't exactly easy to understand, even for an expert, and people have other priorities about things they care about.

For a Republican its mostly going to come down to trust in government, and its that ideology which drives the conclusion.

Anyway I don't think scientific shibboleths are all that valuable. I'd much rather people actually understand this stuff, but the truth is its asking too much. People live busy lives and not everyone can be a scientist.

rocgf• 8 years ago

Know that feeling when you learn a new word and then you see it everywhere?

Well, that's a bit how I feel now that I am reading The Knowledge Illusion: Why We Never Think Alone, by Philip Fernbach and Steven A. Sloman. It's a book around the topic of this post. Might be of interest to whoever finds this topic appealing.

hudon• 8 years ago

The scientific consensus once was that there was nothing more elementary than protons and neutrons. Also that light traveled through ether... To fault someone for being skeptical of scientific consensus seems to be ignorant of humanity’s history of ignorance. Obviously science is an essential tool for human progress but it is not a finder of objective truths.

jimmytucson• 8 years ago

This comment is not satire, I'm being brutally honest: I don't believe everything for the right reasons.

I believe in global warming, but not because of research papers or books I've read on climate change. I've clicked on research papers but I often find the scientific terminology and information in them overwhelming. I think, "It looks like they know what they're talking about." Sometimes I don't even click. I look around at people commenting on it, and if an articulate person makes a case one way or another, it influences my beliefs.

I know this is wrong but frankly it would be impossible to be educated enough on all these matters to justify having an opinion. Imagine if everyone who felt strongly about global warming had read and understood at least one research paper on it. That would mean half my friends, family, and coworkers have read and understood a research paper. I'll take the under...

What makes matters worse is being around people socially who have strong opinions. Not having one can make you look boring or dimwitted. If the conversation wanders into an area in which you do have an opinion--based on facts and research--citing those facts can feel like reading off box score statistics at a Yankees-Red Sox game. No one gets excited!

That makes me cynical. I think, people just want to feel strongly about something, kind of like they want to have a baseball team. It binds them together. I guess that's fine, I just wish we treated it more like sports and less like religion.

beat13• 8 years ago

On something like global warming, I find it easy to trust the Scientific Method, rather than individual papers or individual scientists (or worse, the media translation thereof). The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic. And, while the phrasing may get prettier, that's what most of these arguments lead to, what most of the people who reject global warming believe.

In a related manner, I tend to judge ideas by who agrees with them. Be careful who you're standing with, they can tell you a lot about the validity of where you're standing. (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)

So, for something like global warming, if you're standing with people who believe in and work within the scientific method, you're probably good (assuming you believe in science), and if you're standing with people who believe the world was created in seven days 5500 years ago and corporations whose core business model is to put greenhouse gasses in the atmosphere... well.

1337biz3• 8 years ago

I think the general problem behind issues like these are that the public has repeatedly been over and over deceived by autoritative voices - might it be experts, academics or government positions.

As a consequence, when people have the gut feeling that something might be off many trust that feeling over whatever truth is them presented.

Also: >> (Or, as a friend put it about politics, "If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist".)

is just amazingly simple minded. By the same logic all dogs are Nazis just because Hitler's dog (probably) loved him and Hitler was a Nazi after all.

Droobfest• 8 years ago

"If the racists think the candidate is a racist, the candidate is probably a racist"

I honestly think ideas like this are one of the most problematic beliefs in the current political discourse. This type of thinking only means we look less and less at the merits of someone's arguments and more and more at the tribe they associate with, or even worse the tribe that chooses to associate with them.

We have absolutely no control over these associations. If some nutjob chooses to support my cause does that somehow means my arguments are less valid?

whiddershins• 8 years ago

I think you are misusing the term scientific method here.

Scientific method revolves around hypothesis and tests.

Global warming science is based on something else entirely.

Edit: My wording seems to have provoked confusion as to my point. Apologies. My point is that not all science utilizes the scientific method.

npmaile• 8 years ago

I could not disagree more with your second point.

Just because a group of misguided individuals support a specific idea, person, or ideology, doesn't mean that the thing they support should be judged based on the merits of those people. The things should be evaluated based on the individual merits of whatever it is.

Following your logic, I could easily say that Hitler was a vegetarian, so if you don't eat meat, you stand with Hitler.

devonkim4• 8 years ago

I usually like to use the argument that if climate change scientists were held by so much money you’d see a lot more rich scientists / early retirement scientists outside pharmaceuticals, medicine, and oil & gas. In contrast, I have never, ever heard of a petroleum engineer or oil & gas company manager living in poverty or struggling to find work. Where is all that George Soros money going? You can only fund so many scientists that risk their careers, Hollywood celebrity sex cults, and paid protestors of hundreds of thousands. I did some back of the napkin math with a guy at a bar using his own conspiracy theory addled numbers and it came out to at least $10 BILLION PER YEAR. That’s complete absurdity. I know the Koch brothers are worth a lot but I couldn’t ever think they’re paying that much to fund conservative crap unless they get something in return, which you absolutely can from corporations compared to uh... a lot of papers and bad wardrobes from research scientists?

jbandela1• 8 years ago

The core counter-explanation to the scientific consensus is "Scientists are greedy liars in a giant conspiracy to get rich on research grants", which I find, um, problematic.

I think this is a core counter-explanation for anti-vaccine and GMO as well.

PurpleBoxDragon2• 8 years ago

I see people doing this, but only selectively when it benefits their existing beliefs. They look at the worse groups agreeing with those they disagree with, while ignoring the worst groups that agree with them.

robomartin3• 8 years ago

Except that global warming/climate change has now been distorted beyond recognition.

What most believe is no-longer aligned with reality:

- Read Google’s research report for the jaw-dropping reality they uncovered without intent

- Study ice core data

- Understand the concept of planetary scale rate of change

- Understand the fact —FACT— that if we had Captain Kirk erase the entire United States from this planet by trasporting everyone and everything into space CO2 accumulation would continue

- Understand that if we erased all of humanity next monday it would take somewhere in the order if 25,000 to 50,000 years for CO2 levels to drop 100ppm

- Now explain how much in resources and energy would be required to bend the planetary-scale rate-of-change of atmospheric CO2 from about 100 ppm per 50,000 years to 100 ppm in 50 year (a 1,000 x improvement over the natural process)

- Now explain how this massive amount of energy and resources will not produce massively more CO2 (and more)

- If you said “renewable energy” go back to the top and read the Google paper

This global warming thing has been turned into a political football by both sides. What’s sad is the truth isn’t at either end of the scale. Most people who now believe “the scientific truth” are believing sonething as false as those who deny it.

The Google paper is the starting point of something that should have shifted the dialog on the subject years ago. However, their conclusion doesn’t lead to easy money and raises more questions than it answers; a real invonvenient truth.

__________ttttt• 8 years ago

It can be tough to judge by who you stand with.

I like socialism and communism. I think it can bring lots of good to the world. But people who propagate it are some of the worst people to have ever walked the earth. I think they were just mistaken. 100 million deaths with errors bars bigger than the number of people killed in the holocaust.

I don’t want to be judged for propagating social welfare just because some monsters committed horrendous acts.

Similarly in the US, I support left wing and sanders. But I won’t want to be judged as if I stand with cop killers, antifa, the Congress baseball game killer, etc.

I don’t think it’s a good idea to use this formula frankly. It’s also easy to manipulate.

aldoushuxley0014• 8 years ago

Your comment is dripping with contempt and your attitude is frankly disgusting. Science is not a popularity contest... nor is science so black and white. You'll find plenty of good scientists questioning just how much humans are contributing to global warming, so long as you phrase it like that (nuanced), rather than asking flat out whether people believe in global warming or not (black and white). But what you're trying to do is demonize all scientists who don't agree with your opinions and I find it frankly disgusting. Shame on you.

threatofrain• 8 years ago

If you wanted to talk about core CS ideas, would you just ask anyone? If you knew you were making progress on an academic discourse, would you think to talk about your readings with just anyone?

As soon as you want to make deep progress on anything you need to talk with people who match you on preparation and energy. This is true even on HN and core CS topics.

tathougies• 8 years ago

When I dont know about something and someone has a strong opinion, I asked to be explained to. Then I ask critical questions designed to undercut their arguments until I am satisfied. This is a way to ckme across as intelligent without having to know about everything.

anitil• 8 years ago

I don't believe everything for the right reasons

I can't imagine how it would be any other way. Only on the internet can people be experts on everything. The rest of us just kind of wing it and hope for the best.

_cs2017_• 8 years ago

You can develop a (mental) trust chain.

Verify yourself that a few people seem both well-informed and unbiased, using your personal experience or research. Put a decent amount of trust in them.

When a person you trust appears to have high regard for another person's opinion, add some trust to that other person.

When you notice someone says dumb or biased stuff, reduce your trust in them by a lot.

Continue like that for years, mixing some independent verification here and there, and you'll have some idea of what's going on.

BeetleB2• 8 years ago

Often mentioned on HN, Jonathan Haidt's The Righteous Mind (https://www.amazon.com/Righteous-Mind-Divided-Politics-Relig...) is a worthy read. Briefly: Almost everyone comes up with the conclusion first, and rationale later. The former drives the latter. He gives examples from studies where people gave responses similar to what this paper has: Very poor reasons, and occasionally nonsensical ones.

This is true for pretty much everyone - don't go and count yourself as the exception. The more intelligent you are, the more refined your reasoning, but there's evidence to show that intelligence will not lower the bias. Counterarguments from others as intelligent or more intelligent will. One of the curses of being more intelligent is that if you hold a biased view, you usually need someone as smart as you to change your mind. The smarter you get, the fewer people there are who can help remove your bias.

Some people are more objective than others, but often only in a limited domain - not in their whole lives.

However, 20 per cent of justifications were subjective and involved making a reference to one’s cultural identity, personal experience.

The book also touches on this. In my personal experience, fact based reasoning is rarer than this. There are many reasons people believe something. Attempting to discern the Truth is usually in the minority. It is to be expected that all the other reasons will be more prevalent - they simply have more utility than merely gaining knowledge. It shouldn't surprise people that factual reasoning is rare - it has little utility in most spheres of life. Much less than social cohesion and tribalism does.

Consider the issue of intelligence, and its spread across various groups (usually race and gender). It's very common to find a very well educated person insist that everyone is born equally with the same mental/intelligence potential, and differences exist merely in the extent they foster it. When asked for their rationale/evidence, the answer is usually a variant of "I choose to believe it" (usually for ideological or cultural reasons). I'm not referring only to ordinary folks, but also to university academics, etc.

(I'm not saying that they are factually wrong - merely the reasons they believe it are not based on any facts).

whether they agreed with the scientific consensus on climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution

Two of those items (vaccines and GMO foods) touch on a strongly cultural force on purity. The book shows that a lot of people value purity (likely a genetic trait). They associate food consumption not just with physical health, but also mental/spiritual health. So they are quite sensitive to "unnatural" or foreign agents going into their bodies.

zyxzevn• 8 years ago

I have been working hard on debunking belief-systems that are in science itself and in its communities.

A lot of science is based on procedures and theories that automatically create certain results. As long people do not see this, it makes no sense comparing one belief-system versus another.

adamrezich• 8 years ago

Since scientific consensus has replaced religion for many people, we're long overdue for Luthers and Calvins to question it (and I say this as a Catholic). It's intuitive that "the word of God" can and historically has been perverted by human beings who have been corrupted by power, it should follow that the same is true for "settled science." Even if you're not religious, historical religion is an excellent demonstration of the fallibility of man, why would scientific consensus be any different?

ryanmarsh• 8 years ago

Reason cannot give us ethics. Ethics is based upon subjective human experience.

Nasrudith4• 8 years ago

Is it though? MAD is a trivial counter example. The reason why you shouldn't nuke your rival nation even though they are communists/capitalists that you despise with every fiber of your being is that you would get nuked in turn for it.

Granted ethics has many differing frameworks itself.

jancsika• 8 years ago

climate change, vaccines, genetically modified (GMO) foods and evolution

On all four I happily defer to the experts in the scientific community who study the relevant fields.

On none of these do I suspect a breakdown of science because the sample of diverse specialists I have queried in each field reinforce the wider notion that there is a clear scientific consensus. Furthermore, the conversations I've had with specialists don't reveal any lack of consensus, while in my experience specialists usually seem quite happy to talk about scientific controversies.

On these topics let's call it "appeal to diverse set of authorities." Throw me a denier from any of the four topics and my only tactic will be to agree on a method of randomly choosing one of the thousands of experts to whom I delegate my opinion. The doubter must then either agree to argue with that expert or be forced to argue their position as the great conspiracy of the 21st century.

As long as you discuss these topics face-to-face, you'd be surprised how quickly even some of the hard core deniers' positions shift.

Edit: clarification

randcraw• 8 years ago

IMO, there are three bases for dis/belief in a theory: 1) the supporting evidence is compelling, 2) the counter evidence is not, and 3) the alternative theories are not. The authors (seem to) mention only basis 1, but not 2 or 3. But it's the interplay among all three that must tip the scale if the thought process is truly scientific.

However I doubt any non-scientist could enumerate serious counter theories to the scientific status quo for evolution, GMOs, vaccines, or climate change -- other than citing probability and the burden of proof as insufficient for their adoption.

Personally I know little evidence that GMOs are toxic, so I side with non-toxic. Same for vaccines (now that Wakefield is wholly discredited). Same for counter-theories to evolution, though that's such a big topic, it'd be silly to endorse all or none of it, especially at the fringes. Evolution's chief strengths are its longevity and that there's no viable alternative theory for speciation. The existence of global warming AND man as its cause also suffers from a lack of viable alternative explanations. But is this scientific thinking, or just pragmatism? I disbelieve unless you can convince me otherwise. That's just common sense.

The OP doesn't seem to address "burden of proof" in judging scientific theories, except to combine the three bases under "justification". But I think the distinction between the three is essential, as is their visible presence, in a rational mind, since science-based belief must reflect the sum of thought that assesses evidence for, against, AND vs. alternative theories.

Ignoring any of these three puts one on the road to faith.

jeffdavis• 8 years ago

"scientific consensus"

That's a contradiction in terms. Science is not democratic; wide agreement doesn't matter. A single rogue experiment or even observation can upend an entire way of understanding the world.

Compare the following two statements:

"We consulted with the scientific community. Sound science shows that vaccines save many lives, not just the ones being vaccinated. Decades of history have not turned up any significant risks. Therefore, we recommend local schools give vaccines to nearly all students. We've set up a fund to help administer this for schools that need it, and resources for homeschooled children."

Versus:

"Our favorite professors determined that vaccines are good, so we're going to inject every kid in the country, including yours. There's nothing you can do about it because you are not a Ph.D.".

With phrases like "scientific consensus", people hear more of the latter and less of the former. Especially since the phrase is used to essentially sign a blank check, where the original claim can be stretched far into the political realm by whoever is speaking.

tunesmith2• 8 years ago

While I'm easily in agreement on three of those four topics, I still get stuck on GMO. I've heard many times that the scientific consensus is that GMO foods are safe, but so far I can't understand why that statement can be made with so broad a brush. There are certain GMO foods that I have no problem with because I've looked into them a little more, but my impression of GMO is that the manner of genetic modification is essentially limitless, and it probably depends on the food, and the environment on where it's grown, etc. I mean they're literally saying, "Yup, we changed it" - shouldn't the question be changed it how? So since I can't hope to understand the complete enumeration of GMO ingredients in a package of storebought food, and which ones might be contributing to some sort of long term systemic imbalance in the food supply... I'm one that is prone to agreeing with GMO labels on food so I can buy the ones that aren't if I want. I'd like to think that I'm open to finding out what I might be misunderstanding here, but usually when I find discussions online about it, it tends to be either too vitriolic or so scientific I can't understand it and suspect there's some perspective being lost.

slavik81• 8 years ago

The scientists saying GMOs are safe mean they are safe like refrigerators are safe. You can certainly create an unsafe refrigerator. Maybe it has a faulty ground wire and runs voltage through the handle. Maybe it is unbalanced and will topple over on you. That fridge would be dangerous, but fridges are not dangerous as a category.

That could be contrasted with products made of arsenic. Those are quite dangerous as a category because arsenic is poisonous.

Invictus0• 8 years ago

Organic matter is composed of molecular compounds. Things like oxygen, glucose, cellulose, etc. When scientists at Monsanto change the genome of an organism, they do it so that it grows larger, or is resistant to a weedkiller, or resistant to a virus. When these GMO plants are then harvested, they can be tested for any toxic compounds such as formaldehyde or arsenic. Since there is no evidence of toxic compounds above what you might find in ordinary food, you can conclude that GMOs are safe. It is impossible that there "could" be something in there that is toxic, or something we don't know about, because we know exactly what compounds are in the plant and we know that those compounds are not dangerous.

tunesmith2• 8 years ago

That's fine, but that limits the parameters to what is healthy for the person eating it. There's also the aspect to consider of changing the genome affecting the larger environment. I understand the argument that this has been done throughout history via selective breeding of plants, but it's more extreme and in a more compressed timeframe with genetic modification - meaning, less ability to anticipate and deal with the side effects.

carapace• 8 years ago

The world is fundamentally a pretty nice, easy-going place. (Cf. Bucky Fuller) Ergo, bad reasoning is the only factor keeping us from entering a kind of Golden Age.

(FWIW, the rational belief to hold about GMOs is that they are a dangerous unproven experiment, and that's it's wildly irresponsible to apply genetic engineering willy-nilly without centuries of research. So... YMMV.)

yters• 8 years ago

Imagine if the topics were existence of ether, phrenology, or racism, which enjoyed the scientific consensus of their day. I wonder what would correlate with disbelief in those controversial topics.

noetic_techy• 8 years ago

Anytime you hear the word "scientific consensus" used to brow beat people, you should run. Science is not about consensus. Plenty of scientists challenge the consensus view and end up being correct. It's still happening to today.

We should not be urging the point that "good scientists" are the one who don't question the consensus view.

I can give a good current example: Alzheimer's. Were now seeing the failure of the Amaloid Beta model in all clinical trails and preliminary evidence is starting to point to a herpes virus link.

scottlocklin2• 8 years ago

There's plenty of evidence that science and scientists are easily corruptible and high profile 'results' like "mmmmm GMO corn" are a lie. Example from my own career: some ridiculous smart grid technology which claimed people would turn their air conditioners off when it is hot out because "muh free markets" peak load pricing changes. I actually had access to the original data which pushed forward this ridiculous multi-billion dollar boondoggle and checked the assertions: the PIs overtly lied.

xsmasher• 8 years ago

People make decisions with their gut first, and then backfill their decision with "logic." We should be called homo irrational, not homo sapiens.

Add to that the amount of effort we expend to protect our egos and it's a wonder we ever arrive at correct decisions.

People are “consistently inconsistent” in reasoning about controversial topics

Related Stories